Last year, the Legislature as part of its bold reforms of public
education introduced the Course Choice program that would allow students to
take courses online instead of being limited to offerings in their schools. The
state
approved 42 providers, including from universities and other school
districts, which would be allowed to solicit students; 23 received business. Once
families had given permission to enroll their children in one or more of these,
rules from the state Department of Education would allow their local districts
to approve of the arrangements; if they did not act within a four-day window to
do so, the registration would proceed.
However, controversy
arose when in parishes across north Louisiana a number of families alleged their
children had been signed up for courses without their consent, that signups
were occurring from students not even in a district, and that districts were
refusing to approve almost all to, in Bossier Parish, none of the enrollees. As
a result of the confused state of affairs, White announced
for the next school year the program would take on more a pilot status, with
provider enrollment caps, than full-blown rollout, and the enrollment process
would be rebooted. Also pertinent to this decision was the recent court ruling
that the Minimum Foundation Program could not be used to fund this, so the
cutback also responds to the short time frame to find dollars in a tight
budgetary environment.
As White pointed out, having the backstop of local
counselors reviewing requests for appropriateness and further review in the
case of seemingly unknown students registering – it turns out errors made in
the initial data entry process caused that – showed the system was working to
prevent problems. It’s just that there were so many questioned entries that it proved
ineffective and, in fact, pointed out that the biggest potential bureaucratic
flaw came with the decision to give unfettered review power to the local
districts.
Unfortunately, many in the education establishment are
oriented to put more emphasis on protecting it and those who benefit from its operation
as currently constituted than on best educating children. A particularly
despicable example of this attitude comes from Claiborne Parish School
Superintendent Janice Williams, who calls the reforms designed to remove bureaucracy
and introduce choice and competition to the government-monopoly school model as
an attempt to “collapse public education” and said
“Course Choice is going to destroy public education as we once knew it” (of Claiborne’s
six schools, for the most recent year
reported two are ranked C, two are ranked D, and two are ranked F, and its LEAP and iLEAP grade level or above percentage of students has dropped from 2009 from 53 to 48 percent, so she
seems to have direct experience heading a district where public education has
been collapsed and destroyed by its own actions).
White maintains that this attitude of competition through
Course Choice viewed as something designed to take resources away from a district
(dollars from the state going to the district were to be subtracted for every
class registered through Course Choice with some transferred to the provider)
that must be resisted caused entirely statistically improbable rejection rates,
such as Bossier’s and Caddo Parish’s 95 percent rate – actions which may be
illegal if the systems are discouraging students. (Interestingly, by contrast
Bossier contracted out in the program to enroll one online student even as it
denied its students the same chance to go outside the district.) Had it not been that many school officials did
not pay sufficient attention and did not address an enrollment request within
the 96-hour window, which automatically validates it, perhaps hardly any would have
been signed up, allowing local officials to invalidate state law for suspicious
reasons.
Also problematic is the signup procedure. At least one
company, which ended up registering almost 90 percent of the 870 originally
submitted, used the inducement of a tablet device that would be used for course
delivery but could be kept regardless of whether the student actually passed
all hurdles for course completion. This appears to have led to registrations
for their own sakes, probably many inappropriately, that were vetoed.
Subsequently, some families on the receiving end of this bounty claimed
their children never assented nor had they given the required parental permission
for this registration.
Of course, these assertions must be viewed very
suspiciously. It seems incredibly unlikely that the company’s registrars could
make up out of thin air the data that they submitted that was tied specifically
to existing students. Far more likely is either the children in question did it
without the parents’ knowledge or the parents, apparently a large number of
whom receive free government benefits already, simply were inattentive of the
implications or too comfortably used to receiving no-strings resources from
government-connected programs to question the process at the time it happened.
Still, these events demonstrate the need for
rule-making to address these areas. The existing state oversight process should
strengthen the burden of proof when a district vetoes an enrollment over a
family’s objections to ensure local officials aren’t abusing their discretion. And,
providers should be forbidden to supply inducements, whether related to course
delivery, until the classes actually begin, and if related to delivery to make
families liable for them.
1 comment:
Once again, the marvelous Supt. White has, in your words, caused a "confused state of affairs" and "controversy arose" therefrom. What euphemisms!!
In the end, you conclude and opine for us that this situation was "in part caused by these very opponents."
Whew! I am glad the smart, always-right people are still letting us know what is really going on here.
However, if you really are interested in the other side of this story, I suggest you read the May 23, 28 and 30 posts to louisianavoice.com.
[By the way - your proofreading and editing is not getting any better.]
Post a Comment